What difference does ("good") HRM make?

The importance of human resources management (HRM) to the success or failure of health system performance has, until recently, been generally overlooked. In recent years it has been increasingly recognised that getting HR policy and management "right" has to be at the core of any sustainable solution to health system performance. In comparison to the evidence base on health care reform-related issues of health system finance and appropriate purchaser/provider incentive structures, there is very limited information on the HRM dimension or its impact. Despite the limited, but growing, evidence base on the impact of HRM on organisational performance in other sectors, there have been relatively few attempts to assess the implications of this evidence for the health sector. This paper examines this broader evidence base on HRM in other sectors and examines some of the underlying issues related to "good" HRM in the health sector. The paper considers how human resource management (HRM) has been defined and evaluated in other sectors. Essentially there are two sub-themes: how have HRM interventions been defined? and how have the effects of these interventions been measured in order to identify which interventions are most effective? In other words, what is "good" HRM? The paper argues that it is not only the organisational context that differentiates the health sector from many other sectors, in terms of HRM. Many of the measures of organisational performance are also unique. "Performance" in the health sector can be fully assessed only by means of indicators that are sector-specific. These can focus on measures of clinical activity or workload (e.g. staff per occupied bed, or patient acuity measures), on measures of output (e.g. number of patients treated) or, less frequently, on measures of outcome (e.g. mortality rates or rate of post-surgery complications). The paper also stresses the need for a "fit" between the HRM approach and the organisational characteristics, context and priorities, and for recognition that so-called "bundles" of linked and coordinated HRM interventions will be more likely to achieve sustained improvements in organisational performance than single or uncoordinated interventions

What does it take to make integrated care work? A ‘cookbook’ for large-scale deployment of coordinated care and telehealth

The Advancing Care Coordination & Telehealth Deployment (ACT) Programme is the first to explore the organisational and structural processes needed to successfully implement care coordination and telehealth (CC&TH) services on a large scale. A number of insights and conclusions were identified by the ACT programme. These will prove useful and valuable in supporting the large-scale deployment of CC&TH. Targeted at populations of chronic patients and elderly people, these insights and conclusions are a useful benchmark for implementing and exchanging best practices across the EU. Examples are: Perceptions between managers, frontline staff and patients do not always match; Organisational structure does influence the views and experiences of patients: a dedicated contact person is considered both important and helpful; Successful patient adherence happens when staff are engaged; There is a willingness by patients to participate in healthcare programmes; Patients overestimate their level of knowledge and adherence behaviour; The responsibility for adherence must be shared between patients and health care providers; Awareness of the adherence concept is an important factor for adherence promotion; The ability to track the use of resources is a useful feature of a stratification strategy, however, current regional case finding tools are difficult to benchmark and evaluate; Data availability and homogeneity are the biggest challenges when evaluating the performance of the programmes

Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review

Objective: There is a widely held assumption that engagement by clinicians and healthcare organisations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence has previously been collated. The objective of this study was to address the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance? Methods: An hourglass-shaped review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves healthcare performance; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages, focusing on mechanisms. Results: Of the 33 papers included in the focused review, 28 identified improvements in health services performance. Seven out of these papers reported some improvement in health outcomes, with others reporting improved processes of care. The wider review demonstrated that mechanisms such as collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved healthcare performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved healthcare performance. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that there is an association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organisations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The mechanisms through which research engagement might improve healthcare performance overlap and rarely act in isolation, and their effectiveness often depends on the context in which they operate. Strengths and limitations of this study • This review brings together for the first time a diverse body of literature addressing whether engaging clinicians and healthcare organisations in research is the likely to improve healthcare performance • It also explores the mechanisms through which improvement is achieved to try and understand how any improvements might come about • However, it relies on the quality and coverage of the existing literature • It is an extremely complex topic, but nonetheless one worthy of further exploration, particularly given the pressure to justify research spending in healthcare systems, and to encourage its implementation.UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme ( project number HS&DR- 10/1012/09

Safer clinical systems : interim report, August 2010

Safer Clinical Systems is the Health Foundation’s new five year programme of work to test and demonstrate ways to improve healthcare systems and processes, to develop safer systems that improve patient safety. It builds on learning from the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI) and models of system improvement from both healthcare and other industries. Learning from the SPI highlighted the need to take a clinical systems approach to improving safety. SPI highlighted that many hospitals struggle to implement improvement in clinical areas due to inherent problems with support mechanisms. Clinical processes and systems, rather than individuals, are often the contributors to breakdown in patient safety. The Safer Clinical Systems programme aimed to measure the reliability of clinical processes, identify defects within those processes, and identify the systems that result in those defects. Methods to improve system reliability were then to be tested and re-developed in order to reduce the risk of harm being caused to patients. Such system-level awareness should lead to improvements in other patient care pathways. The relationship between system reliability and actual harm is challenging to identify and measure. Specific, well-defined, small-scale processes have been used in other programmes, and system reliability has been shown to have a direct causal relationship with harm (e.g. care bundle compliance in an intensive care unit can reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia). However, it has become evident that harm can be caused by a variety of factors over time; when working in broader, more complex and dynamic systems, change in outcome can be difficult to attribute to specific improvements and difficulties are also associated with relating evidence to resulting harm. The overall aim of Phase 1 of the Safer Clinical Systems programme was to demonstrate proof-of-concept that using a systems-based approach could contribute to improved patient safety. In Phase 1, experienced NHS teams from four locations worked together with expert advisers to co-design the Safer Clinical Systems programme

Devolved governance systems

This article assesses the extent, nature and outcomes of the recently devolved health service governance in the four countries which comprise the United Kingdom. This four-part configuration can be seen as a natural experiment in comparative governance which could therefore carry important lessons not only for the UK but in other countries too. While remaining under the aegis of the National Health Service, each constituent devolved administration has a developed a substantially different governance system. These systems reflect fundamental issues and priorities concerning the decentring of authority, the production and deployment of authority, the suite of incentives required and the preferred role of quasi-market mechanisms. The paper makes an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each governance regime

Integration and Continuity of Primary Care: Polyclinics and Alternatives, a Patient-Centred Analysis of How Organisation Constrains Care Coordination

Background An ageing population, increasingly specialised of clinical services and diverse healthcare provider ownership make the coordination and continuity of complex care increasingly problematic. The way in which the provision of complex healthcare is coordinated produces – or fails to – six forms of continuity of care (cross-sectional, longitudinal, flexible, access, informational, relational). Care coordination is accomplished by a combination of activities by: patients themselves; provider organisations; care networks coordinating the separate provider organisations; and overall health system governance. This research examines how far organisational integration might promote care coordination at the clinical level. Objectives To examine: 1. What differences the organisational integration of primary care makes, compared with network governance, to horizontal and vertical coordination of care. 2. What difference provider ownership (corporate, partnership, public) makes. 3. How much scope either structure allows for managerial discretion and ‘performance’. 4. Differences between networked and hierarchical governance regarding the continuity and integration of primary care. 5. The implications of the above for managerial practice in primary care. Methods Multiple-methods design combining: 1. Assembly of an analytic framework by non-systematic review. 2. Framework analysis of patients’ experiences of the continuities of care. 3. Systematic comparison of organisational case studies made in the same study sites. 4. A cross-country comparison of care coordination mechanisms found in our NHS study sites with those in publicly owned and managed Swedish polyclinics. 5. Analysis and synthesis of data using an ‘inside-out’ analytic strategy. Study sites included professional partnership, corporate and publicly owned and managed primary care providers, and different configurations of organisational integration or separation of community health services, mental health services, social services and acute in-patient care. Results Starting from data about patients' experiences of the coordination or under-coordination of care we identified: 1. Five care coordination mechanisms present in both the integrated organisations and the care networks. 2. Four main obstacles to care coordination within the integrated organisations, of which two were also present in the care networks. 3. Seven main obstacles to care coordination that were specific to the care networks. 4. Nine care coordination mechanisms present in the integrated organisations. Taking everything into consideration, integrated organisations appeared more favourable to producing continuities of care than were care networks. Network structures demonstrated more flexibility in adding services for small care groups temporarily, but the expansion of integrated organisations had advantages when adding new services on a longer term and larger scale. Ownership differences affected the range of services to which patients had direct access; primary care doctors’ managerial responsibilities (relevant to care coordination because of its impact on GP workload); and the scope for doctors to develop special interests. We found little difference between integrated organisations and care networks in terms of managerial discretion and performance. Conclusions On balance, an integrated organisation seems more likely to favour the development of care coordination, and therefore continuities of care, than a system of care networks. At least four different variants of ownership and management of organisationally integrated primary care providers are practicable in NHS-like settings

Clinical quality improvement and medicine

Medical practice is facing many pressures, all requiring ever-higher standards and better 'quality' in the provision of clinical care. Medicine is not alone in facing such forces, and it may be appropriate to apply the methodology used in other disciplines to address this issue; common problems are generally amenable to common solutions. The 'quality' approach was initially applied to health care in the USA, presumably because of the accent on market forces and the relationship with market share. In recent years, other health care systems have invested in this approach, applying lessons learned from management disciplines and the aviation industly. The Institute of Medicine's report on health care quality noted that 'every system is perfectly designed to obtain the results it gets' fll The European Union has thus far not included quality as a formal item on its agenda; however, with increasing mobility of patients and health professionals, there is pressure for legislative action addressing risk management and quality improvement. The development of a European approach to ensure the highest quality standards, free movement in the European Union, as well as the medical devices industry, are all areas that are raising interest. Overall, it behooves the individual clinician to be aware of developments in the area.peer-reviewe

Do the UK government's new Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores adequately measure primary care performance? A cross-sectional survey of routine healthcare data

BACKGROUND General practitioners' remuneration is now linked directly to the scores attained in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). The success of this approach depends in part on designing a robust and clinically meaningful set of indicators. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which measures of health observed in practice populations are correlated with their QOF scores, after accounting for the established associations between health outcomes and socio-demographics. METHODS QOF data for the period April 2004 to March 2005 were obtained for all general practices in two English Primary Care Trusts. These data were linked to data for emergency hospital admissions (for asthma, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary hear disease, diabetes, stroke and all other conditions) and all cause mortality for the period September 2004 to August 2005. Multilevel logistic regression models explored the association between health outcomes (hospital admission and death) and practice QOF scores (clinical, additional services and organisational domains), age, sex and socio-economic deprivation. RESULTS Higher clinical domain scores were generally associated with lower admission rates and this was significant for cancer and other conditions in PCT 2. Higher scores in the additional services domain were associated with higher admission rates, significantly so for asthma, CHD, stroke and other conditions in PCT 1 and cancer in PCT 2. Little association was observed between the organisational domain scores and admissions. The relationship between the QOF variables and mortality was less clear. Being female was associated with fewer admissions for cancer and CHD and lower mortality rates. Increasing age was mainly associated with an increased number of events. Increasing deprivation was associated with higher admission rates for all conditions and with higher mortality rates. CONCLUSION The associations between QOF scores and emergency admissions and mortality were small and inconsistent, whilst the impact of socio-economic deprivation on the outcomes was much stronger. These results have implications for the use of target-based remuneration of general practitioners and emphasise the need to tackle inequalities and improve the health of disadvantaged groups and the population as a whole

A study of general practitioners' perspectives on electronic medical records systems in NHS Scotland

<b>Background</b> Primary care doctors in NHSScotland have been using electronic medical records within their practices routinely for many years. The Scottish Health Executive eHealth strategy (2008-2011) has recently brought radical changes to the primary care computing landscape in Scotland: an information system (GPASS) which was provided free-of-charge by NHSScotland to a majority of GP practices has now been replaced by systems provided by two approved commercial providers. The transition to new electronic medical records had to be completed nationally across all health-boards by March 2012. <p></p><b> Methods</b> We carried out 25 in-depth semi-structured interviews with primary care doctors to elucidate GPs' perspectives on their practice information systems and collect more general information on management processes in the patient surgical pathway in NHSScotland. We undertook a thematic analysis of interviewees' responses, using Normalisation Process Theory as the underpinning conceptual framework. <p></p> <b>Results</b> The majority of GPs' interviewed considered that electronic medical records are an integral and essential element of their work during the consultation, playing a key role in facilitating integrated and continuity of care for patients and making clinical information more accessible. However, GPs expressed a number of reservations about various system functionalities - for example: in relation to usability, system navigation and information visualisation. <b>Conclusion </b>Our study highlights that while electronic information systems are perceived as having important benefits, there remains substantial scope to improve GPs' interaction and overall satisfaction with these systems. Iterative user-centred improvements combined with additional training in the use of technology would promote an increased understanding, familiarity and command of the range of functionalities of electronic medical records among primary care doctors